The news reporter wanted a feel good puff piece regardless of how inappropriate it is. The interviewee wanted to report the actual news.
But it wasn’t inappropriate…
The company that owns that NBC affiliate wanted a feel good puff piece. I doubt she had a say in the matter.
Yeah, she’s just following orders.
We all know how good “just following orders” and “just doing my job” turns out.
Basically trying to nostalgia bait people but buddy saw right through it and went in for the kill.
Can’t let people say the truth, it would inconvenience your masters.
She was trying to do a fluff piece interview, and he was trying to drop hard facts. I’m glad he didn’t back down on his points.
-“Snow is pretty”
-“Mmhmm, so private equity owns…”
Crazy how fast she pulled back on that. Like she has been trained to not allow that sort of talk. It was almost instant.
A+ for staying on message.
It really makes you wonder how these reporters are trained. What else can they not talk about on air?
Anything that goes against the values of Sinclair or NexStar would be off the table.
As unhinged as social media gets, this is pretty much why so many end up trusting it over traditional media. The internet broke the veil of commercial reporting/journalism - media in general. Broke the trust on accepting public personas and not being suspicious of them behind the scenes. Sell out reporters/journalist/artists/etc are like scabs to labor strikers
If the fediverse can focus on integrating content from from other fediverse sources extremely organically, the fediverse will win. I shouldn’t have to leave Lemmy to watch this video.
You need to leave? I could just watch it on the timeline. Using jerboa, I guess it depends on client.
Legend. Came back to his point with a friendly smile, and plenty of grace
With a climate change kicker thrown in
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
Careful with that quote, it’s by Kevin Alfred Strom a Neo-Nazi from an 1993 essay in the national Vanguard, a white nationalist publication and it refers to the antisemitic trope of world Judaism.
I’m not criticizing you, just want to contextualize it because it could be misconstrued to be a antisemitic dog-whistle, especially in the context of the linked article.
It’s an axiomatic truism. It’s logic is self contained.
To learn who is wet, simply find out who is in the water.
Why does that preclude it from being in the zeitgeist?
I knew it was the kids with cancer all along!
